exiledinnewcastle Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,11790_3097055,00.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
number16 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 so it could mean that we are the only team that ever gets shafted by article 17 and no other teams? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1874M Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 If we can appeal the appeal then this is good for us from FIFA.... shows they think we have been hard done by which would mean them to look at the case again... surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 If we can appeal the appeal then this is good for us from FIFA.... shows they think we have been hard done by which would mean them to look at the case again... surely. when it went to CAS, that was it going above FIFA's juristiction....they can be unhappy if they like, but CAS over-rules them..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1874M Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 when it went to CAS, that was it going above FIFA's juristiction....they can be unhappy if they like, but CAS over-rules them..... Over ruled yes but surely if the laws / rules are changed then it would effect this decision surely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Over ruled yes but surely if the laws / rules are changed then it would effect this decision surely. If EU law changes yes. Unless EU law changes, any rule Fifa choose to make up is gonna be unenforcable if the player takes it to court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K1874M Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Baws Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seymour M Hersh Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 when it went to CAS, that was it going above FIFA's juristiction....they can be unhappy if they like, but CAS over-rules them..... Which is not bad for a mob set up bt the IOC and with no real remit over football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 FIFA should have drafted their fecking rules and regs more carefully Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Which is not bad for a mob set up bt the IOC and with no real remit over football. Congratulations. A post on thread subject and not a dig at a poster in sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JamboRobbo Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 FIFA should have drafted their fecking rules and regs more carefully Agree, but then surely the bottom line is, whatever rules they draft up, unless they get the agreement of courts (i.e. rules that will stand up in court) then the rules are pretty pointless regardless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juanimator Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Congratulations. A post on thread subject and not a dig at a poster in sight. Except you've just had a dig at a poster for not having a dig . . . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jammy T Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Agree, but then surely the bottom line is, whatever rules they draft up, unless they get the agreement of courts (i.e. rules that will stand up in court) then the rules are pretty pointless regardless? Ambiguity and a lack of clarity in drafting allow rules to be loop-holed If the wording is clear the courts will follow the wording. For example, there is a complete lack of clarity in the regulations as to either what compensation should be paid by a player in breach of contract, or the basis upon which it should be calculated. So, had the rules said compensation shall be the remaining contractual salary then it would be clear. If FIFA didnt want this type of result they should have specified upon what basis compensation should be calculated i.e. an independently assessed market value. Its fairly basic drafting. It would also have saved on over ?150ks worth of legals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portobellojambo1 Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Ambiguity and a lack of clarity in drafting allow rules to be loop-holed If the wording is clear the courts will follow the wording. For example, there is a complete lack of clarity in the regulations as to either what compensation should be paid by a player in breach of contract, or the basis upon which it should be calculated. So, had the rules said compensation shall be the remaining contractual salary then it would be clear. If FIFA didnt want this type of result they should have specified upon what basis compensation should be calculated i.e. an independently assessed market value. Its fairly basic drafting. It would also have saved on over ?150ks worth of legals Agree Jammy T, you should never offer an either/or method of calculating something, you lay down the rules, having ensured they meet requirements, and cannot simply be picked to pieces by lawyers who know their stuff. It has to be clear cut, state "you can do this, but if you do the punishment will be "x"", not "x", "y" or "z". I am not sure what FIFA did before coming up with Article 17, but I would like to hope they drafted a number of possible scenarios, presented these to both lawyers, and CAS, and asked them to tear them to pieces legally, before coming up with the final draft of the relevant article, I suspect however, they did not, and went with their own interpretation of what they were trying to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted January 31, 2008 Share Posted January 31, 2008 Our last option would be to take FIFA to court. They f@#$%d up the rule and NOW want to change it. We either sue them or have them look into the joke that is the GFA and find out why we keep getting screwed every week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.